Gulabrao Shivram Sable vs Rakesh Konduji Pipare
2021 Latest Caselaw 175 Bom

F.A. St.1835.2020.                                                                                     1/2


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                            Civil Appplication (CAO) No.756 of 2020
                                                IN
                            Civil Application (CAF) No.1145 of 2020
                                                IN
                              First Appeal Stamp No.1835 of 2020
                         Gulabrao Shivram Sable Vs. Rakesh Konduji Pipare
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                          Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for the Appellant.
                None for the Respondent.

                                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2021.

Heard learned Advocate Shri Y.B. Mandpe for the appellant/original respondent.

2. This Court has granted ad interim stay to the impugned judgment as per the order dated 13th August, 2020. It was subject to depositing the entire decretal amount. Prior to that, the Executing Court vide order dated 31st July, 2020 was pleased to direct the employer of the appellant to stop releasing retirement benefits to the extent of Rs.5,54,011/-. This was not communicated by the appellant to the learned Advocate herein.

3. So, now the appellant wants exoneration from depositing the decretal amount as directed by this Court as per the order dated 13th August, 2020. The original claimant/present respondent could not be served for want of supplying the copy of the application by the appellant to the office.

F.A. St.1835.2020. 2/2

4. The appellant undertakes to supply the copy of the same. I think in view of this fact, at least, till appearance of respondent, the appellant needs to be relieved from the responsibility of depositing the decretal amount. At the same time, it is necessary to direct the Executing Court not to take further decision about disbursal of the said amount to the respondent/decree holder. Hence the direction:-

i. The appellant need not to pay the decretal amount till appearance of the respondent.

ii. The Executing Court is directed not to take any decision about disbursal of the amount of Rs.5,54,011/- until further directed by this Court.

iii. The appellant to comply with the shortcomings at the earliest. It is made clear that, if this Court will find any dilatory tactics, this order will be cancelled.

iv. The appellant is at liberty to serve the respondent by R.P.A.D.

v. The matter be kept after three weeks.

JUDGE

vijay